Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30176952›Full record

SynthesisEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2018

Reducing mental health-related stigma in primary health care settings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

E Heim, B A Kohrt, M Koschorke, M Milenova, G Thornicroft

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

E HeimDepartment of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7434-7451
B A KohrtDepartment of Psychiatry, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
M KoschorkeCentre for Global Mental Health, King's College London, London, UK.
M MilenovaCentre for Global Mental Health, King's College London, London, UK.
G ThornicroftCentre for Global Mental Health, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Reducing Barriers to Mental Health Task SharingK01MH104310 · NIMH · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KOHRT, BRANDON ALAN · 2014 to 2018
$908k
Optimizing Provider Attitudes and Competence in Learning Mental Health Systems (OPAL)R21MH111280 · NIMH · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GIRMA, ESHETU, KOHRT, BRANDON ALAN · 2016 to 2017
$369k
Medical Research Council MR/R023697/1NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH104310NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH111280
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma in primary health care (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies targeting PHC staff (including non-professionals) were included. Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.

methodsData collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, PHC staff and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full-texts was done with software MAXQDA. Full-texts were analysed with regards to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a risk of bias assessment was undertaken.

resultsA total of 18 studies were included. Risk of bias was rated as high in most included studies. Only six studies had tested their intervention against a control condition, two of which had used random allocation. Most frequently used interventions were lectures providing theoretical information. Many studies also used interactive methods (N = 9), discussed case studies (N = 8) or used role plays (N = 5). Three studies reported that they had used clinical practice and supervision. Results of these studies were mixed. No or little effects were found for brief training interventions (e.g. 1 h to 1 day). Longer training interventions with more sophisticated didactic methods produced statistically significant changes in validated stigma questionnaires. These results have to be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented.

conclusionsMore rigorous trials are needed in LMICs to test interventions that target discriminatory behaviours in relationship with patients. Cultural adaptation of stigma interventions and structural/institutional factors should be more explicitly addressed in such trials.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelSocial DiscriminationSocial StigmaStereotypingHumansMental DisordersPrimary Health CareEducation psychiatricmental illness stigmaprimary caresystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID30176952
PMCPMC6399081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.